how to play an evil party ...what are narrative hooks that hold the group together

[Selkirk]

in my present group i'm playing a cg cleric...but the evil classes thread got me to wondering-how would an evil party function? what motivations and plot hooks would hold a band of evil characters together for the long term (say till level 10 or later)? now this could just be me-i see ce chars as borderline sociopaths(if not full fledged) and le as probably fascists(following a wicked king or order).

i don't think it's undoable but the standard 5 chars meet in a tavern doesn't seem like a good starting point for a group of ce/ne chars. but the problem extends past the 'meeting'...what would make them stay together(and not kill each other for loot)...petty squabbles would erupt into fights and murders. i could see a group of similar race/background perhaps banding together for a certain time (again the drow raiding party)...but this almost requires the strong leader type to keep order and would turn the other players into sidekicks/underlings-this is not a good alternative for a group.

now all this being said...i think alignment in most dungeons and dragons games is ill used. assuming that the campaigns are taking place in some sort of medieval setting...applying modern mores of good and evil to different chars/races is silly at best. from what i've read i don't think they even took prisoners in most medieval battles (or if they did it was a ..now your slaves type of thing). so wholesale slaughter of townfolk is definitely evil but i don't think killing the last goblin who surrenders is necessarily evil. and orcish society because it's different and probably more primitive still would have an order and logic to it...not just be a bunch of slavering murderlusting mooks.

most of what constitutes 'evil' with player characters should probably be considered at worst a neutral action. and 'good' characters could do evil things-say a group of paladins slaughtering a community of orcs (the orcs are in the way of human expansion and the king has told the paladins they are evil..not the best example but hopefully its something :D).

anyways, long post...two questions then 1)should the moral 'gray' areas for characters be loosened and 2)if not (and probably if so too :D) what plots and hooks work to keep a party of truly evil characters together.

[Sartharina]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?325177-Cattle-Driving-Necromancers-Bizarre-Campaign-Journal&highlight=Cattle-Driving
This is all I can think of.

[Selkirk]

it's good but it requires total buy in on premise...just a personal preference-i'm looking for more sandbox solutions. i would actually think of the western camp as ne at worst. maybe even neutral...while the human camp could be ln or le even. still some of the bits going on there-'the door is only open for one hour' feel gimmicky.

[Sartharina]

Even if you ignore that aspect - go for Evil as an Alignment, not Personality. A party that seeks to further the goals of the lower planes, and Negative Energy.

Kel'Thuzad and Arthas... throw in a few more for kicks.

[silveralen]

Well, consider that evil has a lot of variance. For example, some who takes money to kill people is always going to be evil. That's kinda a given, ending sentient life for profit is hard to classify as even neutral (at least imo, this may not be true for everyone). At the same time, he could have a code of ethics which discourages random murder, he could have friends who he is loyal to and cares deeply about, to the point of risking his life for them, and he could even have soft spots for certain types of people.

Of course, under 5e, that could be classified as LN. That characters acts in accordance with a personal code, one aspect of which happens to be that killing people in cold blood for money is okay. He may not go out of his way to advance himself at the expense of others, even when doing so doesn't violate his code, which isn't what LE seems to be getting at. In this case, you can have people with one or two evil aspects who tend more towards a neutral alignment overall. This might allow for an "evil" party who are actually more neutral overall, basically being flawed or anti-heroic characters.

Even people who are truly without morals can work well in parties. In the real world, sociopaths work amazingly well in groups because they thrive on social contact. Sociopaths want people to like them and feel loyal to them, because they know that means they have a better chance of getting things from that person. In a "me or them" situation, they will toss their friend's under the bus, but an intelligent one won't do so on a whim, and will likely help his party out normally. Nor will he kill someone for treasure, their will be more treasure later down the line if he works with them afterall. Of course, this works much better when you are introducing one evil player into a group of mostly neutral or good.

A full party of completely irredeemable characters who only care about self advancement is very difficult, mainly because such characters barely even register as real people rather than caricatures of villains. The evil alignment choices almost look they are meant for such characters these days, with people of a more realistic evil bent falling into neutral alignments. YMMV of course, I'm just going by the very short write ups in 5e PHB.

[MaxWilson]

They'd almost have to have a history together and a bond separate from their shared alignment. Maybe they're all fanatical freedom fighters (Toril Tigers!) trying to free the elven kingdom from their orcish masters--and they're all evil because they've given in to hatred and despair. Maybe they didn't start out willing to raid orcish nurseries, kill the children, and raise them all as undead zombies to fight their parents, but at this point they are totally willing to use any means they can. They will poison wells, they will steal from widows, they will kill prisoners who have surrendered regardless of their future threat profile, they will lie and cheat and commit fraud and murder and do whatever it takes to achieve their goals and/or to satisfy their hungers. And if you tell them they're evil, they will probably heatedly respond with some flimsy, fallacious argument about how they didn't have a choice and then change the subject to orcish oppression and how bad orcs are, and never introspect in the slightest about what is really in their hearts now.

IMHO, the classic Lawful Evil alignment is a pre-Civil War slavedealer. (Not necessarily slaveowner--I'm thinking of the guys who brought them across the Atlantic in tiny cramped ships while ignoring all the suffering in the name of profit.) So another way to do this would be to have a bunch of unscrupulous guys who are out for profit, and who rely on each other both to salve each other's consciences and because of accumulated shared trust from helping each other out of previous scrapes. Slavers or robbers or assassins or plague-merchants, it doesn't really matter. The key thing is to arrange their activities to be so horrific that no one who wasn't evil would be willing to participate.

[Angelalex242]

Alternatively, they have an evil master who's watching over their group...

And if they fail to work together, evil bosses like the phrase 'You have failed me for the last time..."

[MaxWilson]

Even people who are truly without morals can work well in parties. In the real world, sociopaths work amazingly well in groups because they thrive on social contact. Sociopaths want people to like them and feel loyal to them, because they know that means they have a better chance of getting things from that person. In a "me or them" situation, they will toss their friend's under the bus, but an intelligent one won't do so on a whim, and will likely help his party out normally. Nor will he kill someone for treasure, their will be more treasure later down the line if he works with them afterall.

Source please? This is contrary to what I learned from the most recent book I read on psychopathy: Without Conscience (http://www.amazon.com/Without-Conscience-Disturbing-World-Psychopaths/dp/1572304510). Is this one of those sociopath vs. psychopath differences?

[Selkirk]

They'd almost have
IMHO, the classic Lawful Evil alignment is a pre-Civil War slavedealer. (Not necessarily slaveowner--I'm thinking of the guys who brought them across the Atlantic in tiny cramped ships while ignoring all the suffering in the name of profit.) So another way to do this would be to have a bunch of unscrupulous guys who are out for profit, and who rely on each other both to salve each other's consciences and because of accumulated shared trust from helping each other out of previous scrapes. Slavers or robbers or assassins or plague-merchants, it doesn't really matter. The key thing is to arrange their activities to be so horrific that no one who wasn't evil would be willing to participate.

yeah i really like this example..or perhaps better yet the confederate soldier conscript. but this goes into normal/even good people living under evil institutions..certainly confederate soldiers showed bravery and courage and loyalty to their mates even while fighting for a morally bankrupt cause. this sort of fits with the good paladins doing evil things type of hook...and certainly with le. but most of the soldiers ran the spectrum of human thought and morality. note here-i'm certainly not making any sort of claim to historical accuracy in regards to the us civil war :D...

but d&d alignments for characters have typically (for me at least) been an indicator of an individual's morality. a ce character will be untrustworthy and unscrupulous in all of his dealings (as long as it suits his/her purpose). but some could also be defined as evil based on class as well..a necromancer should be evil by inclination. the act of animating corpses and worshipping undead powers would put him at a distance from most (non undead) societies. the idea of a necromancer fitting in with a group that included a good cleric or a paladin is a tricky one at best.

i think le , from the above example , could be interpreted as point of view. certainly most southerners were no different than most northerners...the military wings were brave...the leadership however was advancing a morally rotten cause. so within a le society you could have a range of individuals...good and bad and in between.

but as it plays out in rpg terms we have black and white comic book style 'morality'...orcs are evil ...humans who behave just as orcs do are of any alignment they choose just as a matter of race ...

within a ce society (strict ce) ...well one wouldn't have a society...or if there was one it would solely be based on power concepts but still it would break down at every point.

[MaxWilson]

I wouldn't count most Confederate soldiers as evil, at all. About as many as I would Union soldiers. The interesting thing about the Civil War is that (much as I hate the Confederacy and am glad to see it less than dust) most of the people who fought in that war did it for valid reasons. You could make a good argument that anyone who volunteered to leave their family and go fight to keep other people free is Good-aligned. I think it takes more than a single act to create an alignment, but at any rate I don't think Confederate soldiers count as evil. Many slaveowners wouldn't count as evil either, depending on how they treated their slaves. (They probably wouldn't count as Good either, although some of them likely would.)

I was talking specifically about the slavedealers.


the idea of a necromancer fitting in with a group that included a good cleric or a paladin is a tricky one at best.

I've got one of these necromancers in one of my story campaigns. I expected some friction, and there was friction at first, to the point where the LG team leader expressed gratitude for his contributions and then asked whether he would rather stay on the team or split off on his own--and to my surprise, the necromancer not only voted to stay with the party on pragmatic grounds (safety in numbers) but also grudgingly admitted to admiration of the "good guys." I wonder if he'll stay evil or slip into neutral due to their influence, and how he'll wind up feeling about his life choices if so.

[Scirocco]

Not exactly a narrative thing, but I think a key element to keep in mind when in an evil adventuring party/evil member in a non-evil is not to do those things that get you evil karma in video games (squeezing every last drop of gold out of a farmer, kicking puppies, eating babies, etc...)

i.e. don't be Stupid Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StupidEvil)

[Selkirk]

i would argue that in fact most of the soldiers were good (if we assume most of humanity is good :D...which i do). the soldiers were like soldiers in any conflict...common people forced into war. now the aims of the leadership were immoral...and the slaveowners certainly immoral. but the shop owners and average people in southern society were just like the shop owners and average people in any country.

and still the military ranks showed courage and loyalty...traits one associates with good people. so le society constitutes largely what we would see in any society. in the d&d world then what does this mean? are some drow lg? no ...:D. but is every drow a blood crazed lunatic/sadist? probably not. le provides some leeway for more interesting (to me) societies and settings.

ce is however more limiting. again when i think of ce i think of a sociopath...someone who is amoral...without beliefs (or if they do believe it is in institutions and deities that preach murder and sadism). one might find this sort of thing amongst demons or devil societies...but with rpg's we like to think of individual chars making choices. in a demon society even tho i might want to murder everyone i'm limited by fear of being killed myself...and this would work for that society but not for roleplaying (at least long term).

@scirocco but stupid evil is how i see ce. again the psychopath or the entirely amoral. le provides more gray areas...ne is just there :D.

@maxwilson i just have a fundamental problem with a paladin and a good cleric(or anyone of good alignment really) rolling with a necromancer...unless one plays the study of undead in strictly scholarly terms (which isn't fun :D). the act of animating dead and consorting with undead creatures while a fun thing to do is certainly not a good thing to do (regardless of society).

[Traab]

Evil doesnt mean stupid, give them a reason to work together, an excuse to not backstab each other, at least till the end, and you are golden. Say, some sort of uber weapon that will let them conquer the world, but make it clear that it requires the full group to capture it. AT least then the inevitable frenzy free for all wont happen till the end of the campaign anyways. Or make it an artifact that requires a specific number of people to use. Think, megazords from power rangers. If they were all evil, they would still have to work together to summon all the parts and unite them.

Another option is, forming a group with an actual leader. The boss and his flunkies. Think megatron and his decepticons. All evil, all work together (not counting starscream and his constant efforts to take control) You can be evil and loyal. A variant of this is a dmnpc that doesnt do much but give orders and is strong enough to enforce them. The npc hangs back and makes your party do all the work on his orders, and you obey because he is powerful enough to obliterate you. That might get more railroady, but there are ways around it. The npc hangs back in the evil lair and communicates with you through scrying. "Go do this and come back with the macguffin" and if you try to cross him you get nuked. That way aside from getting the quest and having to do it, the decisions on how is up to the party.

[Selkirk]

and it's a valid point..evil doesn't have to be stupid (altho evil actions in a lawful society will inevitably lead to stupid decision making...why did you kill the baker and his family for no reason? :D). but if we are to assume that ce chars are entirely without scruple or moral-at every turn. and i think this is a valid assumption (the nature of being chaotic alone...impulsive, individualistic. and throw evil into that mix and ...) there are just too many logical points where things break down...someone says something cross to the ce char, loot isn't split right...ce char finds loot and keeps it for himself.... for a party to function there has to be some degree of trust and loyalty.

in all honesty most le societies can be explained as pov. humans terrorized by orcs will find all orcs to be the incarnation of evil...orcs pushed off lands and killed by paladins will see humans as evil. so i don't really believe totally in evil as a societal basis for alignment (but it does have some merit...duergar are not nice people :D). still most of what would define one as ce is the individual actions of this or that character imo.

[Naanomi]

Champions of an evil cause often works for me... have an Evil Empire out there? I bet it might employ a team of 'problem solvers' who work together fairly well. Same might go for a cult of an Evil God or similarly Evil organizations.

[MaxWilson]

@maxwilson i just have a fundamental problem with a paladin and a good cleric(or anyone of good alignment really) rolling with a necromancer...unless one plays the study of undead in strictly scholarly terms (which isn't fun :D). the act of animating dead and consorting with undead creatures while a fun thing to do is certainly not a good thing to do (regardless of society).

The necromancy thing actually is less troublesome IMHO than the Warlock 2 (of Cthulhu) aspect.

Necromancy, in and off itself, is morally equivalent to Conjure Minor Elemental to summon mephits (who are Neutral Evil). Skeletons are malicious and dangerous if you let them free, and carelessly freeing them in a populated area would indeed be evil in the same way that releasing sharks into a swimming pool would be. Raising something as an undead soldier isn't any more evil per se than killing it in the first place--but obsessing about undead so much that you build your whole wizardly career around necromancy isn't the sign of a healthy personality either, and it's not something the paladin would ever do any more than he would ever study Cthulhu just to get telepathy and Eldritch Blast. It troubles Sparrowhawk (the Eldritch Knight) and Cranduin (the paladin) that Loraan (the necromancer) is willing to raise hobgoblins from the dead, but it isn't something that he's felt the obligation to do anything about at this point, because there's nothing obviously harmful about it when they're all busily engaged in fighting off the same illithid slavers. It just seems unhealthy--but good is inclined to be tolerant and broad-minded by its nature, willing to judge others with charity absent specific reason to do otherwise.

As mentioned, BTW, this is a story campaign and not a playing campaign. I.e. this is a story that I write as vignettes and use D&D rules for resolving dramatic conflicts, it is not a campaign that has players and a DM or even a linear plot. So far I'm skipping forward and backward in time as I flesh out the character interactions and the plot.

[Yorrin]

I once had a character idea that never hit the table (since nobody else ever DMs :P ) for a NE character who was a typical mercenary-turned-adventurer who simply had no empathy for the suffering of others. He did not actively seek to cause harm without reason- he simply did care once harm had been caused.

It helps if one thinks of the definition of evil as a lack of something good just as much as a pursuit of something bad. Both are valid definitions, and the lack of empathy character can adventure on most of the same quests as the paladin without any problems, and is in some ways more disturbing than a puppy-kicking necromancer.

This does, of course bring up the question of "neutral" on the good-evil axis, but I reserve LN and CN for those characters whose mindsets lend itself to an "alternative" morality system from the traditional one, and true N as those who do not think or act in a deeply moral or immoral fashion.

[Regulas]

Keeping an evil party together is not much harder then a good one. I shouldn't have to say to keep in mind just because a character is CE, doesn't mean that they are forced to kill every living thing the instant they see it.

Two factors that come into play are Value; even a CE character is capable of understanding ideas like working towards a better goal, or otherwise just not killing someone cause they can get something out of it.


The other major factor I can't stress enough: Mortality. In general people don't want to die. Your party members might argue, maybe even wrestle or slash at each other, but if they are arguing over that fancy new sword odds are they aren't going to have a duel to the death, they will try and force the other person to back down but once they realise that they are about to get seriously injured or die they will start evaluating how bad they really want it. (If I were DM I might force them to intimidate each other instead of getting to actual combat for example).

[silveralen]

Source please? This is contrary to what I learned from the most recent book I read on psychopathy: Without Conscience (http://www.amazon.com/Without-Conscience-Disturbing-World-Psychopaths/dp/1572304510). Is this one of those sociopath vs. psychopath differences?

These terms will vary depending on who you ask, neither is typically used in actual psychology. Hare himself actually describes the difference as thus (at least if memory serves): Psychopaths are people without any moral or empathetic ability, in short they really do not care. Sociopaths are people who have a limited empathetic ability and a different set of moral values from those around them. In DnD terms, CE vs LE.

Of course in both cases Hare himself freely admits they are fully capable of being functioning embers of society (he wrote an entire book about psychopaths in the workplace). So I'm not sure which point you disagree on. Even if someone has no conscience, he is fully capable of working with others when it benefits him, and the manipulative tendencies actually work in his favor in such situations.

[Likantropos]

Two DMs in my club are having evil parties now and they both are hilarious. First is a sandbox campaign, where the bad guys do what the good guys do: protect their home. Granted, it's a dungeon of unspeakable evil with a demon-summoning portal in the middle, but still, they have a good reason to cooperate. The second one had to work together to obtain an ultimate weapon. Naturally, an enormous amount of backstabbing and double-crossing occurred by the end, only one party member survived.
That said, evil people are actually good at working together, especially if they have a common goal.

[Selkirk]

good food for thought here. the more i think about this -i'm actually liking the idea of just having lawful and chaotic as ways to describe societies. i imagine that most of the societal behaviors would be similar...so there isn't really a need for moral/value judgements on a broad basis.

with good or evil (or perhaps notoriety/ fame or infamy/reputation) reserved for individuals. gives more leeway with party building...one isn't restricted at the outset by terms like 'good' or 'evil'-which have strong connotations. but rather by their actions within the party and the society/structure they live in (once party members gain levels their reputations would be broader). after a string of 10 murders the half orc thief might rightfully be declared evil...:D. and the party might want to join in on the murders ^^;..or assist local soldiers in hunting him down.

[Naanomi]

These terms will vary depending on who you ask, neither is typically used in actual psychology.
Psychopathology is sometimes used as a term to indicate general mental health issues, particularly but not specifically if there are psychotic features (hallucinations, delusions). Somewhat archaic term but still findable in the literature.

Sociopathy is not a diagnosis, but can still be found in the mental health field as a symptom or general description of someone with impaired or abnormal empathy.

Neither would be inherently tied to an 'evil' alignment I'd think, though one could make a case for significant sociopathy paired with poor coping mechanisms leading to the kinds of 'traditional Chaotic Evil' that often spring immediately to mind with that alignment.

[Reisa]

First, determine what kind of evil the party is. Find out what motivates them, why they became a party in the first place.

Are they together because they've all made enemies in high places (who care less for the law than they do), and they've banded together because of mutual protection? Are they on a sacred mission from their pantheon? Or do they all want to get rich without worrying about pesky things like law and morality?

One evil campaign I've been setting up, is set in the typical Fantasy Film Climax (TM). The forces of evil have aligned and lain waste to the land. The last vestiges of the good aligned realms have come together to fight in a massive climax of blood and guts and snot and ass.

But that's not where our villains are. Our villains, being the opportunistic vultures that they are, are behind the enemy lines, carefully looting burned out villages.

[mr_odd]

In the words of the Payday gang... "Let's get rich, fellas." The key is motivation/goal and actions taken to accomplish them.

Motivation can be all kinds of stuff, revenge greed, hatred, etc. Pick one of the seven deadly sins and go with it (or better yet, have each PC represent one of the sins).

Players would have to act evil as well (this does not mean they're crazy serial killers who murder everyone they see). They simply act in a way that places themselves above everyone else.

Just make sure you talk to your players before hand. There is a certain measure of meta gaming that keeps the game and the party going. The party can see themselves as a family, similar to how mobs or gangs work. It should work as long as the players know they need to keep party dynamics.

[Shining Wrath]

Self interest. Each member of an evil party has to see how they benefit more from adventuring in a group, and in particular, this group. Fluff wise this makes the least sense for CE.

Remember there are different ways of being evil (or good). Ask your party members what flaw they have that makes them evil. What's their vice(s)? They don't have to be disloyal.

Having said that, evil is not impolite. An evil character must have some circumstances under which they will in fact murder everyone else in their sleep. Lust, sloth, pride, envy, gluttony, and very especially wrath and greed have led people to betray family, friends, and / or country, and so on for any other list of vices you might come up with.

[Sartharina]

Self interest. Each member of an evil party has to see how they benefit more from adventuring in a group, and in particular, this group. Fluff wise this makes the least sense for CE.

Remember there are different ways of being evil (or good). Ask your party members what flaw they have that makes them evil. What's their vice(s)? They don't have to be disloyal.

Having said that, evil is not impolite. An evil character must have some circumstances under which they will in fact murder everyone else in their sleep. Lust, sloth, pride, envy, gluttony, and very especially wrath and greed have led people to betray family, friends, and / or country, and so on for any other list of vices you might come up with.

You are grossly overstating the significance of betrayal in Evil.

[Shining Wrath]

You are grossly overstating the significance of betrayal in Evil.

I am saying evil people have a big moral flaw of some sort. Different ones for different people. I believe that is true by definition.

Once you establish you have a big moral flaw, it is possible for that flaw to be exploited to lead you to betrayal. The Great Wall of China was defeated because the Mongols bribed a gate keeper; greed led to betrayal. A lot of Soviet era spies, same story - they sold the US out for money. First they were greedy, then they were traitors.

Wrath leads you to want to hurt people, but sometimes you can't and get away with it. Then it gets bottled up and simmers. It can come out at the worst times.

Then there's Iago from Othello. Was that wrath, or envy?
Lady Macbeth - is blind ambition greed, or pride?

Benedict Arnold - pride led to betrayal.

Paris of Troy - lust for Helen, or pride?

I submit that the great betrayers of history and literature were almost never motivated by a desire to betray first and foremost. They had another fatal flaw which fate / the gods exploited to lead them into betrayal.

So, given that every evil person by definition without the slightest possibility of exception has a fatal moral flaw, there are circumstances where that flaw could be exploited to lead them to betrayal.

A nice DM probably wouldn't do that, as a TPK is usually not pleasant. But pretending that evil people are just like the rest of us ignores what it means to be evil.

[Inevitability]

You are grossly overstating the significance of betrayal in Evil.

Betraytal is Chaotic, not Evil. A LE character wouldn't betray someone, while a CN character would. CG is probably okay with betraying people for the greater good.

[Gnomes2169]

Betraytal is Chaotic, not Evil. A LE character wouldn't betray someone, while a CN character would. CG is probably okay with betraying people for the greater good.

Betrayal is closer to CE, depending on circumstances. Straight-up stabbing someone who trusts you in the back when taken out of context is certainly evil and more than a little chaotic. This said, there are some mitigating circumstances. For example, convincing a person following evil McGoteestachedude with his army of McMooks celebrating Evilmas that maybe sticking with the bad guys would be a bad thing would mean that the person is betraying the evil people, but circumstances lean the act towards CG and redemption.

If a person betrayed their party members solely for spite or profit, it would definitely fall under the CE heading. If they did it just because they thought it would be funny, still CE. If they did it to try and help someone they care about (CN lancer's wife/ daughter/ kittens are being held by McGoteestachedude as hostages), then things become a little less set-in-stone CE.

Not every chaotic person is just waiting to betray the party, just like every lawful person is not Judge Dredd, and every neutral person is not racked with indecision over what color of underwear to put on in the morning. Chaotic-Lawful is a definition of how independant a person is, how willing they are to act alone or ignore/ follow orders from an authoritative figure, how they view honor or codes of conduct/ societal norms, and (typically) how far they plan into the future. Beyond those, there is nothing else that the chaotic tag does by itself.

Oh, and after that rant, 5e really tries to divorce mortal life from absolute ideals of good, evil, law and chaos. A CN character acting ChaoticStupid will be punished by the DM in ways other than alignment (mostly through RP and fellow characters kicking them in the shins, repeatedly), and it will feel more satisfying (and cause less arguments over alignment) than saying "Okay, now you're evil."

[Likantropos]

Once you establish you have a big moral flaw, it is possible for that flaw to be exploited to lead you to betrayal.

Let me tell you a story. There once was a great leader, a beacon of hope for his people, but he had one moral flaw, which led him to betray his race, condemn his planet to civil war, starvation and energy crisis. A noble rebel tried to oppose him, to tear the resources he seized for himself and save the starving planet, but his efforts were sundered.
Guessed already what am I talking about?
It's the third Transformers movie. The treacherous leader is Optimus Prime whose moral flaw was his respect to humans.
Does anyone think Optimus is CE?

[Shining Wrath]

Let me tell you a story. There once was a great leader, a beacon of hope for his people, but he had one moral flaw, which led him to betray his race, condemn his planet to civil war, starvation and energy crisis. A noble rebel tried to oppose him, to tear the resources he seized for himself and save the starving planet, but his efforts were sundered.
Guessed already what am I talking about?
It's the third Transformers movie. The treacherous leader is Optimus Prime whose moral flaw was his respect to humans.
Does anyone think Optimus is CE?

I refuse to accept Michael Bay as a prophet.

[Likantropos]

G1 storyline is, essentially, the same, but a bit longer.

[Selkirk]

i do think there is something to be said for an evil character being evil on his own time :D. it isn't as if the party lives together. so there is something to said for the adventuring party as a place where an evil character could exist...and commit crimes and murders once they got back from the dungeon etc. there is something of a false conceit that the party would be friends/close companions outside of the missions/quests...after the princess is rescued (the evil char might be in this strictly for money to finance his/her lifestyle) the party could split up-and then reform for the next campaign.

a better example might be the necromancer-while the party was adventuring the evil side of the char might not even surface (outside of a few spells..but in the pursuit of a goal, defeating the bbeg, would this even be a matter of dispute?). i mean the necro could research and animate undead, worship various liches and cavort in the cemetary and the ranger/paladin would never know.

[Laserlight]

evil doesn't have to be stupid (altho evil actions in a lawful society will inevitably lead to stupid decision making...

Chaotic actions in a Lawful society will get you in trouble; however, Evil actions may well fit in with Lawful--particularly if a few Evil people had a hand in drafting some of the laws. And Evil isn't stupid, per se; it's just self-interested. Quite a few Evil people have been very successful.

[Sartharina]

Betraytal is Chaotic, not Evil. A LE character wouldn't betray someone, while a CN character would. CG is probably okay with betraying people for the greater good.Actually - LE is very prone to betraying people. It's not whimsical when they do it, but they have no problem offing people they feel have outlived their usefulness, among other things.

[Finieous]

Evil people can be bound together by most of the same things that bind non-evil people together. Family, tradition, self-interest, security, friendship, loyalty, love, hatred...

Think of a drama such as Sons of Anarchy and all of the complex and often dysfunctional relationships that bind the characters together.

[silveralen]

Actually - LE is very prone to betraying people. It's not whimsical when they do it, but they have no problem offing people they feel have outlived their usefulness, among other things.

Technically any alignment can betray someone. Lawful alignments are less likely to do so if it is against a personal code of honor or something similar, but anyone else it is just a matter of how much and why. Say a paladin finds out his best friend had someone murdered in cold blood for questionable reasons, maybe even finding out fro the person in question who confides in him. If he turns him in, that is a betrayal. CN/CE are the most prone to betrayal, by their very nature. Anything that prevents them from doing so would prevent a LN/LE character respectively, plus the lawful characters probably have something about loyalty in their law/tradition/code of conduct.

[Shining Wrath]

Actually - LE is very prone to betraying people. It's not whimsical when they do it, but they have no problem offing people they feel have outlived their usefulness, among other things.

"You have failed me for the last time", and the LE boss terminates his loyal minion as an example to the others. It happens often enough to be a trope.

[Doug Lampert]

in my present group i'm playing a cg cleric...but the evil classes thread got me to wondering-how would an evil party function? what motivations and plot hooks would hold a band of evil characters together for the long term (say till level 10 or later)?

Murder-hobos are EVIL and appear to be the standard for most people's D&D games.

The typical module involves some evidence that ONE GUY or ONE GROUP somewhere in a dungeon is doing something wrong, so the PCs burst in and kill everyone and steal everything not nailed down. Gosh, if someone were to do that to my parents or my house because of something a neighbor did am I supposed to call them "good" too?

Yet murder-hobos are presented as working together fine.

I really see this sort of question as largely meaningless, evil people have worked together fine many times and places in the real world. They work together fine in fiction.

IMAO this question COMES because people have in many cases NEVER SEEN an actual GOOD party. Since they accept murder-hobos with "Good" written on their character sheet as reasonable they think Evil must be substantially worse. But in fact the alleged good party was evil all along, you've probably been watching evil parties in action for decades.

[Selkirk]

Murder-hobos are EVIL and appear to be the standard for most people's D&D games.

The typical module involves some evidence that ONE GUY or ONE GROUP somewhere in a dungeon is doing something wrong, so the PCs burst in and kill everyone and steal everything not nailed down. Gosh, if someone were to do that to my parents or my house because of something a neighbor did am I supposed to call them "good" too?

Yet murder-hobos are presented as working together fine.

I really see this sort of question as largely meaningless, evil people have worked together fine many times and places in the real world. They work together fine in fiction.

IMAO this question COMES because people have in many cases NEVER SEEN an actual GOOD party. Since they accept murder-hobos with "Good" written on their character sheet as reasonable they think Evil must be substantially worse. But in fact the alleged good party was evil all along, you've probably been watching evil parties in action for decades.

i agree...i think a lot of parties actually act in evil ways, while thinking they are good. this does dilute the notion of evil-reduces it to what alignment is written by the entry in monster manual or arbitrarily written on the player character sheet.

but why the murder hobo party? or why that playstyle? in my experience it's because of boredom with the campaign/lack of structure(there aren't consequences to party actions)/and lack of narrative info. i'm chaotic good but due to information drought i wanted to kill gundrin in cragmaw castle :D. just take his map and be done with him. but perhaps for another thread.

[Orvir]

This thread immediately made me think of the R.A. Salvatore book Streams of Silver. In it, the heroes are pursued by a group of villains from several different factions who are working together for common but non-competing goals. The book spends some time on the internal politics and power struggle within the group.